ADVERTISEMENTS:
Easton’s Model in Politics:
Why General?
David Easton’s theory is popularly known as General Systems Theory and here the very word general is used in the following senses:
In the first place, it is general in the sense that Easton has outright rejected the idea that a separate political theory can be constructed for national politics and another for international politics, or it is useless to construct each theory for each national politics or state.
He rather believes that there shall be a “Unified theory of Politics” for all nation-states which will explain their political systems. Easton launches this idea on the ground that before him the traditional political scientists dealt each state politics separately and this approach created confusion in the minds of students as well as researchers.
In the second place, Easton wanted to devise a system of analysis which will embrace all the general problems which are found in all the political systems or in the politics of all states or most of the states. Here the two words “general” and “problems” are quite significant.
Easton conducted a thorough research about the existing state of political science and this enabled him to arrive at the conclusion that in all developed, developing and under-developed political systems there are some common problems such as sharing of power among the elites, separation of power, state activities etc.
These problems are found in different shapes and dimensions in different systems but the fact is that problems exist. So Easton believes that there shall be a general theory which will be capable of analysing all the issues. Easton has found that some political systems have survived while others have not.
There are some typical problems for a particular type of government in some states while the same type of government works satisfactorily in other countries. In order to analyse the nature of these peculiar issues and problems it is necessary to build up a general theory and the existing partial theories will have no use. Again, the amalgamation of all partial theories will not serve our purpose. So it is a great necessity to build up a general theory for all political systems.
In one of his works Easton says “The main objective of the general theory is to establish criteria for identifying the important variables requiring investigation in all political systems”. This particular approach to political studies has opened to us a new horizon of political science. It is no longer confined to the study of institutions such as political parties, legislature, executive and judiciary etc.
What is Systems Analysis?
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In the opinion of Easton political science is faced with two main problems— concrete and theoretical. For a comprehensive, balanced and realistic political analysis it is necessary that the concrete and theoretical aspects or characteristics should be clubbed together. This objective can be achieved with the help of an analysis which is called systems analysis.
Let us define it after Easton: “Systems analysis is a theoretical approach that in its general orientation tends to facilitate research about practical social issues. In effect, this mode of analysis interprets political systems as a major social arrangement for engaging in collective action”.
The following are the most important points of Easton’s definition:
It is a general orientation and facilitates research which the traditional approach failed to do. The systems analysis is again a social arrangement.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Political system is viewed as a purposefully organised form of behaviour. Easton has observed that number of political systems have survived in the face of crises and stresses. This is, due to the self-regulatory mechanism of the political system. The survival of the political system has been termed by Easton as persistence.
It means that various problems and crises cannot destroy the political system. It has the power to resist the crises. In a political system there are institutions or mechanisms which select, reject or sort out the problems and finally make the facts and issues suitable for the system. This system or method can be compared with a sieve. The function of a sieve is to remove the obnoxious or undesirable elements and separate the desirable ones.
It is the duty of the political scientists not only to select the issues and problems but also to analyse them in the proper perspective. Here two things are essential. One is to collect data and facts which are called empirical way. In other words, in the systems analysis empirical method is a must. Another step is to go into the depth of the problem and to analyse it properly.
Easton says: “because the raw materials upon which political systems works consists of social problems, system analysis has had to be problems oriented in its approach”. What is implicit Easton’s observation is that it is the primary duty of political scientists to adopt utmost caution in respect of the selection of issues and problems.
The concluding words of Easton about the systems analysis should act as an eye- opener for us. He says: “a system analytic approach alerts us to search for an understanding of how it comes about that what later turn out to be critical needs for a society are not, in fact, even formulated as demands or if they are they never manage to reach the stage of viable political issues”.
What Easton says here is that “a systems analysis helps us to find out the problems and guides us to properly analyse them. Systems analysis suggests that we need to interpret outputs as a gigantic conversion process whereby demands are or are not transformed into issues”.
A Self-Regulatory System:
A crucial part of Easton’s general systems analysis is that political system is a self-regulatory system. He believes that political system is surrounded by an environment into which there are number of systems such as economic systems, social system, cultural system etc. Again, within the environment there are other elements.
All the systems as well as elements of the environment react upon the political system and this, in turn, reacts to it. In other words, a political system is neither sterile nor neutral to any move or action. As soon as a move or action reaches the domain of the political system it immediately or at a convenient time responds to that action. But this action or reaction does not stop; rather it is a continuous process.
One thing is to be noted here. When outside forces enter into the domain of political system they may disrupt the normal functioning of political system or simply disturb it. Question is: does the political system stop its function or does it collapse? Easton and his followers have maintained that because of the onslaught of the forces coming from the environment or other systems, political system does not collapse.
Easton has discovered it from his study of different political systems and a comparative analysis. If the outside forces could destroy the political systems it could not survive at all. But reality teaches us that political systems have survived and will continue to survive. Easton calls it persistence and it is known to the readers as persistence theory or concept. The introduction of the self-regulatory mechanism constitutes a vital aspect of systems analysis.
Why does a political theory survive? Easton’s categorical reply—and the same corroborated by others—is that every political system is endowed with certain self- regulatory mechanisms whose function is to combat the forces about to adversely affect the political system or to disturb the normal functioning of the system. No political system is free from stress and strain emanating from other systems or environment.
But this self-regulatory mechanism succeeds in keeping the political system unaffected. Or, if it is at all affected, it makes no harm to the political system. The self-regulatory mechanism exposes once again the interdependence of systems and sub-system.
It is not correct to hold the view that a political system always fights the outside forces. Political system has the ability to adopt the issues or stresses and strains. In other words, political system makes all sorts of compromises with them and finally they are assimilated with the political system.
This quality of adaptation or assimilation is a unique feature of political system. The survival of political system is the consequence of double action—it combats and it adapts. Even if everything changes system survives. By assimilating other features political system enriches itself and at the same time it also contributes to the development of other systems. This is called give and take policy.
While explaining the self-regulatory character of political system Davies and Lewis have shed light still on another aspect of General Systems Theory. They have said that being influenced by the forces of other systems or any element of the environment the political system can remodel its own structure or change its process. Even, it can reorient its functions to suit the needs required by the forces.
In the re-modeling of structure or reorienting of processes there is an important contribution of communication which should not escape our attention. There is a constant inflow or outflow of information to the political system or out of the political system. This is the communication network. The information is communicated by the agencies which are quite active within the system. This is the communication theory elaborated and popularised by Karl Deutsch.
The communication is so important that if its network fails to communicate necessary information emanating from other systems or to send any information arising from the system (political) itself then it will not be possible for the system to respond and, in that case, it will be in a stationary position. In other words, the political system will not be embraced by any change.
The self-regulatory mechanism also highlights a quite different concept which is popularly termed as social change. Thus self-regulatory mechanism is an interesting and complicated concept. It has been asserted that self-regulatory mechanism, communication network and general system theory all are allied concepts.
An Open System:
Since political system is intimately related with the environment and other social systems it is not dissociated from them. In other words, according to Easton, political system is not a closed system but an open system. It is due to the fact that political system responds both negatively and positively to the outward influences. These may cause from environment or other systems.
This receptiveness makes it an open system. Easton has borrowed the openness of political system from physics. “From the standpoint of physics” says Bertallanfy “the characteristic state in which we find the living organism can be defined by stating that it is not a closed system with respect to its surroundings but an open system which continuously gives up matter to the outer world and takes in matter from it but which maintains itself in this continuous exchange in a steady state or approaches such a steady state in its variations in time”.
The openness of political system can aptly be compared with a living organism which states that all the parts of animal and human body are closely related with each other. Similarly, though political system is a distinct system and has its own boundary it cannot remain aloof from other systems.
The decision of the authority which belongs to the political system invariably affects other social systems and vice versa. The decision of the political authority in regard to religious and economic matters affects the economic or social system and these two systems respond to the decisions of the political authority.
Again, if any pressure group takes any decision relating to social or political issues the authority of the political system will express its reaction. It is quite unfortunate that political scientists of the traditional age ignored this.
The openness of political system simultaneously makes it an interdependent system. It denotes that political system cannot work, survive and thrive being divorced from other systems and also from the environment. There is a policy of give and take. “By interdependence we mean” observes Almond, “that a change in one subset of interactions produces changes in all the other subsets”.
Almond cites few examples to explain the term interdependence. He says that the rise of pressure group creates an impact on the party system, executives, legislative and other aspects of state administration. Government’s positive steps to disprove the material condition of the backward classes have changed the entire political scenario of backward areas and their inhabitants. They are also including themselves into the mainstream of population.
In this way changes in society are taking place. The action of the political system is political no doubt but the reaction has wide ramification. It may be noted here that in the traditional approach to the study of politics there was no place of openness. Political science was treated as a closed system which indicates that political system neither influences other systems nor is influenced by others.
Equilibrium and Systems Theory:
If we observe meticulously the various aspects of Easton’s general systems theory it will be obvious to us that all the elements/properties/aspects of general systems theory are interlinked and one such concept is equilibrium. The concept has substantial relevance in mechanics and economics.
But Easton, borrowing it from these subjects, applies it to the study of general system theory. The biologists also use the term. Different parts of human and animal bodies discharge their duties systematically and this leads to an equilibrium position. If any part or sub-organ faults that will create a disruption in the entire system.
In political system equilibrium regularly occurs. Easton offers us the following interpretation of the concept. In his opinion two ideas are associated with it. One is “all the elements or variables in a political system are functionally interdependent”. There is another idea.
The elements/variables act and react with each other and this continues until all of them or many of them reach a state/ position of stability. This equilibrium position has also been called a steady state. Both equilibrium and steady state denote same idea. The action and reaction of the variables/elements after some time reach a stage when both action and reaction stop further movement.
But this halt or steady state/equilibrium is not permanent. With the arrival of new forces the steady state changes and they move new stage or position. This instability is caused by the fact that since political system is an open system it cannot remain indifferent to the action of new elements. Its chief property is to react. It is, therefore, obvious that action and reaction, movement and response all are the properties of equilibrium.
According to Easton, action, reaction, equilibrium, disequilibrium all are the salient features of a pluralistic society. In such a society there exists number of interest groups, pressure groups, political parties, domestic and international pressures, and different organs of government.
Their existence is not of prime importance, the important fact is that all of them function with maximum freedom like the various systems, groups, parties, organisations, all are interdependent. The general tendency of any pluralistic society is to act and react and at the same time to arrive at a compromise—”Society consists of multiplicity of groups which are always jostling one another to establish a balance or adjustment”.
The elements of political system are so alert that if they fail to reach an adjustment or compromise that will cause harm to the political system. The absence of equilibrium or the existence of disequilibrium means instability of the political system and this instability will invite enemies of the political system to interfere.
Thus, two opposite tendencies simultaneously work in the political system. The elements jostle or fight or act and react among themselves and, at the same time, they do not forget to reach a compromise which is called steady state or equilibrium. The clandestine motive was to counteract the advent of Marxism.
Input-Output Concept and the System Theory:
In the analysis of general systems theory a crucial section is input-output concept and Easton is the champion of this analysis. Davies and Lewis in their Models of Political Systems has defend inputs in the following language: “Inputs can be defined briefly as constituted by the demands made upon the political system and the supports of the system itself”.
Here the two emphasised words are required to be explained. Demands are generally made by the public or by the organisation and groups or parties on behalf of the general public. Demands include higher wages, better health care, more facilities for education, improved infrastructure etc. These demands are generally placed by the public or organisations before the authority of the political system. On the inputs side there are also supports from the system.
Sometimes it is found that the authority supports the demands made by the public and this support strengthens the cause of the demands as well as the demands and in that case the authority adopts measures for the fulfillment of the demands.
The functioning of the political system reveals that a gap crops up between the rise of the demands and their fulfillment. This is occasioned by the fact that communicating the demand to the authority takes time and even for the fulfillment of demand intervention of authority is necessary which is limited by several factors.
Outputs are another aspect of the political system. The fact is that when the authority finds that demands raised by the people are legitimate and are to be met then the authority takes measures and adopts policy. We call these measures and policies as the results of the demands and supports.
In Eastonian term we call them outputs. In economics, outputs are the products. A manufacturer employs raw materials, labour etc. to produce commodities. With the help of the factors of production the producer produces something and it is called output.
Easton attaches maximum importance to the input-output analysis and in his opinion it is a mechanism that deals with the decisions and activities connected with the decisions. In our experience we generally come across that in every political system except the autocratic ones general public frequently make demands to the authority and it is so much common that no political system can be imagined without demands and authority’s initiative or eagerness to meet the demands.
So the input-output mechanism is at the core place of political system. It is a part of the general systems analysis because very often people make demands being influenced by the elements of other systems or the elements may come from the environment. In a closed system there may arise demands and also the supports. But this happens in a limited sense or scale. Since the political system is open the impact of the other systems is profound and different factors make the system lively.
Classification of Demands and Supports:
Easton’s article—An Approach to the Analysis of Political System was published in the April issue of 1957 of World Politics. In this article he has classified the demands and supports. First we shall classify demands following Easton. Demands for allocation of goods and services, educational opportunities and recreational facilities, demand for better transport system etc. Secondly, demands for the regulation of behaviour.
These demands include safety and security of the citizen, change of the marriage system or its regulation, improvement of health and sanitation. Thirdly, sometimes people may demand for better/wider participation in the affairs of the state.
Many people demand that their names are to be included in the voters’ list. People also demand change in election system. Fourthly, many citizens demand more information from the authority—information relating to the management of state affairs, information regarding foreign affairs such as treaty agreement etc.
Supports are of various types. Some are:
(a) Citizens support the political system by paying taxes,
(b) They obey the law.
(c) They may prevent other persons from disobeying law.
(d) Voluntary participation in various affairs of the state,
(e) They lend support to government in the adoption and implementation of policies and schemes.
(f) If some people place illegitimate and unreasonable demand rational section of the society opposes it and argues on behalf of the state authority that irrational demands should not be met.
Outputs:
Demands are the sources of outputs. There is a chain of action and reaction. In any democratic country people first of all place certain demands or claims before the government and in response to those demands authority takes action. The action may be positive or negative.
Several possibilities may occur:
(1) Authority accepts the demand and consequent upon it adopts certain decisions. This is a very common procedure.
(2) If the authority thinks that the demand is unreasonable and irrational and unfit for acceptance then it is summarily rejected. This is also a common picture.
(3) The authority neither implements the demand nor rejects it. It simply keeps in abeyance.
(4) It may also happen that in the judgment of authority the demand is quite reasonable but it is, for the moment, not possible to meet the demand. In that case the authority promises to consider the demand favourably.
(5) The authority may take political move. In order to counteract the demand made by certain people the authority employs its own supporters to propagate against the demand. Whatever may be the type or nature of response in all cases the action of the government can be called output. If we study Easton’s analysis, we shall find that the conversion process of demand into output is really a complex one. The process is linked with many outside and inside factors.
Feedback:
Definition of Feedback:
C. O. D. defines feedback as information given in response to a product, a person’s performance of a task etc. used as a basis for improvement. The modification or control of a process or system by its results or effects. The return of a fraction of the output for an amplifier. These are the several meanings of feedback. Precisely speaking, the feedback is the interconnection of input and output terminals.
The concept is used in electrical engineering to denote the transfer of energy from the output of an electric network to its input. So we can call feedback a process of conversion in which input is converted into output and again output acts as input, which is, again, turned into output. In this way the process continues. By the deliberate action of political authority the demands and the supports ultimately create outputs or the decisions of the authority. In political system the conversion mechanism is not so easy.
The demands and the supports for the demands, passing through a round-about process, are converted into the decisions. The process is complicated because many factors sometimes interfere with the feedback or conversion process. Again, in the process the communication network has a role to play.
This is the feedback mechanism and it was first employed by Easton to explain how the political system is influenced by outside elements and again the latter also influences the former. By introducing the feedback Easton attempts to highlight the functioning of the political system.
Nature of Feedback:
Mention has been made that feedback is a very complex process. The conversion of demands into decision does not take place easily. It takes time. Moreover, the authority of the political system may not be willing to take quick action to satisfy the demands. Even the decision may not satisfy the common people.
There are other aspects of the conversion process. It is to some extent mechanical. In any pluralistic society it is a very common feature that people will have grievances which sometimes assume the character of demands and they or their elected representatives convey them to the government and, in turn, the authority takes action.
There is no novelty or exceptionality in this process and most probably because of this feedback is called mechanical. It is a fact that not all demands are met and nobody expects the hundred percent satisfactions of the demands. This happens everywhere. The agitators or people demand in excess of their necessity and the political system takes action in accordance with its ability.
The initiators of the feedback system have dynamited the concept. In all democratic structures demands are very frequently raised and the government keeps itself alert about the demands. The fact is that no responsible and democratic government can maintain silence in the face of the piling up of demands.
Since there is a perennial inflow of forces and elements into the political system (and these are coming from other systems) reaction to all these is also taking place. The system never faces any stagnation and in that sense dynamism finds a niche in the political system. We can reasonably say action and reaction, inflow and outflow, openness of the political system all these have introduced dynamism into political system.
Feedback can be called a link-link between conversion of input into output and vice-versa on the one hand and the environment on the other hand. The feedback process links other systems and environment with the political system. We can also say that it is the feedback which keeps the political system in working condition. In that sense the feedback is a useful technique or mechanism.
Easton’s feedback mechanism is political in nature while that of physics is not. It is political because political actions play a vital role in all the stages of the process. Parties, pressure groups and political leaders raise the demands and exert pressure upon the authority to take action in regard to the fulfillment of demands.
They do not do it not because of their philanthropic nature but for their own interest. They want to serve political purposes, to win elections. The concept of feedback mechanism is relevant only in democratic set up because in autocracy the organisations hardly enjoy any freedom to raise demands and people cannot organise agitations in support of demands.
Concept of Stress:
Easton has said that political system is an open system and because of this it is always subject to stresses coming from the environment. Political system applies its mechanism, ability or political manoeuvering to cope with the stress.
Few considerations are to be looked into:
(1) The political system can ignore the stress or the forces that have come from the environment.
(2) It can keep them in abeyance for an indefinite period of time and can take no action at all.
(3) The political system can challenge the stresses or demands and say that it will not take any action to fulfill the demands.
(4) The authority of the political system can say that the government will launch a political fight at the political level against the stress.
But a negative step adopted by the political system will invariably aggravate the situation and threaten the very persistence or stability of the political system. Hence the only alternative is that the system must respond positively to the stress and this course of action will help the stabilisation of the political system.
It is generally observed that the political systems of the Third World are subject to various stresses and day by day these multiply. It is due to the presence of many factors the main being the inability of the government to meet the demands.
Easton says that there are two kinds of stresses. One is demand stress and the other is support stress. In the opinion of Davies and Lewis’ “Demand stress may result from the failure of the system to cope successfully with information feedback from its original output”.
The political system may not be in a position to keep itself abreast of the information feedback. The feedback is really a complex process and the structure of the political system is not capable of coping with it. Easton has also said that the type of demand is such that it is not possible for the system to meet it without any delay. Or it may be that it is beyond the capacity of the system to meet demands. It is called “demand input overload”.
The support stress can be explained in the following way:
“All political systems are subject to support stress at sometime; by which is meant that the system may suffer a loss or at least an erosion, of the support given to it by the members of the system. This may result from cleavages among members within the system”.
If the political system suffers from cleavages or disintegrative force, the support stress may not be helpful for the existence of political system. The supports of the political system shall be helpful if there are structural bases in the political system which means that there shall be institutional supports such as electoral arrangements, party system, groups and their activities, sympathetic attitude of organisations, the loyalty of the people and the party. A very good and cordial relationship shall exist between the authority and the people.
Evaluation:
1. Easton’s systems analysis has been evaluated from a number of angles. In the first place, Easton’s model is treated as a technique of social change and introduces dynamism into the political system. The elements or forces come from other systems or from environment and all these profoundly influence the political system which the system cannot overlook or fight away.
If so, the demands or stresses force the system to act accordingly and this finally uproot the traditional structure or existing set up and a new one is introduced. In this way social change takes place. Dynamism also finds a convenient position in the political system. The entire structure appears to be dynamised.
2. Easton’s model helps us to understand how a political system persists or maintains itself in the face of stresses that originate in other systems or environment as a whole. He says that every political system has self-regulatory mechanism and adaptive capacity. The forces may threaten a political system and the self-regulatory mechanism can combat those anti-system forces or unreasonable demands.
It is also found that political system has adaptive capability. Exogenous forces are assimilated with the political system and after some time these lose their separate identity. The case of Indian history and culture may be cited. Many foreign cultures and civilisations have come to India and in course of time they were mixed with Indian culture and Civilisation making all of them into one.
Similarly, no political system can be called absolutely pure. With the passage of time many external forces influence a system and slowly but steadily they form a single system. The formation of new culture or tradition through the assimilation of different cultures and tradition is not new. But how it works in a political system that we come to know from the Eastonian paradigm enshrined in a general systems analysis. It is no doubt a great achievement of Easton.
3. Easton’s first book, The Political System was published in 1953 and his fifth book, The Analysis of Political Structure was published in 1990. In-between two books he also wrote three other books which deal in a greater detail various aspects of systems analysis. He in all these books not only introduced empiricism but also a conceptual vocabulary. Gabriel Almond in an article.
“The Political System and Comparative Politics make the following observation: The Analysis of Political Structure (1990) has involved the (1) elaboration and testing of a framework for the logical ordering of empirical political theories and the formulation of conceptual vocabulary that might serve to unify political study”. By propounding the general system theory Easton has succeeded in building up a “coherent theoretical scheme” which was absent in the traditional political theory. This has raised the prestige and viability of political theory.
4. Gabriel Almond’s structural functionalism is also indebted to Easton’s systems analysis. He has unequivocally expressed his indebtedness in the following words: “The dynamic, interactive, input output model presented by Easton in 1957 enabled me to explicate the functional categories that have played such an important part in my work and to impute meaning to them by arranging them according to the systemic scheme”.
5. Easton’s systems analysis is a landmark contribution to the comparative politics and Gabriel Almond has acknowledged it. Almond is a pioneer in the comparative political analysis. Easton’s conceptual framework has stupendously facilitated the comparative politics.
With the help of concepts devised by Easton it becomes now easy to go through the political system of developed, developing and underdeveloped political systems. In fact, before Easton political scientists did not think it prudent to shed light on the comparative aspects of political systems.
6. Eugene Meehan (Contemporary Political Thought: A Critical Survey) says; “Like Parsons Easton does not think of a theory in term of the creation of conceptual framework. The result is a highly abstract structure that is logically suspect, conceptually fuzzy and empirically almost useless. Easton’s political system turns out to be an abstraction whose relation to empirical politics is virtually impossible to establish.
The promise of conceptual framework with high empirical relevance simply has not been fulfilled”. Meehan vehemently opposes empirically based political theory. In his judgment empirical data and facts cannot say everything in details and cannot enlighten the exact nature of political phenomena.
7. Some critics are of opinion that Easton has not given proper importance to individuals who, in reality, constitute the political system. He has proposed that only the behaviour in relation to politics is to be judged and analysed. But the opinion or judgment of the individual is influenced by many factors and it is unfortunate that he has not brought them under active consideration.
It is a great shortcoming of his empirically based political system. Let us clarify the points. The behaviour and attitude of persons are influenced by variety of factors and any unbiased analysis of politics must account for them. It is alleged-he has failed.
8. Easton makes utmost efforts to highlight the interactions among the various systems on the one hand and system and environment on the other hand. But he does not utter a single word about the impact upon the individuals. For a proper and balanced analysis it is essential that the impact of individual behaviour upon the functioning of system as well as the impact of system and environment are to be adequately assessed.
9. Though there are several criticisms against Easton’s systems analysis and though the validity of these criticisms cannot be denied, it is a fact Easton’s model is an eye opener to an approach to study political science in the perspective of whole environment, various systems and interactions among them.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
This particular aspect has been brought to us by Easton. His credit also lies in the fact that most probably he is the first man to treat political system as an open system. In this connection we wish to remember the glowing tribute of Wasby to David Easton.
He says:
“The political system idea serves to keep us attuned to the broad implications of political acts and institutions, and to the inter-relatedness of events rather than to their idiosyncratic or particularistic aspects. Until the system approach was developed political scientists studying one area of politics or government had no way in which to place in context the phenomena they were studying or to relate institutions to each other systematically.”
Wasby further observes that the general systems analysis encourages the political scientists to study the subject in broader perspective. We firmly believe that the systems analysis is the proper approach to study political science.
10. Even his critics admit that his is a comprehensive approach to the study of political “science. We think that the systems analysis of political science has raised it from a deep slumber. There is a vast and gigantic field of research for political science and following the footsteps of Easton the political scientists can activate their energy to rejuvenate the research.